The two faces of Islam. - Page 2

KrazyHorse · September 9, 2002, 01:16

The Muslim world is not as developed, in general, as the Western world. This includes socially, economically and technologically.

Wait a while. They'll catch up, as there is nothing inherently worse in one rather than the other...

Oerdin · September 9, 2002, 01:48

Frogger: I'm not a practicing christian nor do I frequent evangelical sites. I did run across this article and thought it was interesting, even if sections of it were overly religious. I selected a quote that didn't contain religious nonsense in it because I felt partisan religious drival wouldn't contribute anything useful. If that makes me a deceptive fanatic in your eyes then so be it.

KrazyHorse · September 9, 2002, 01:49

I didn't call you a fanatic, or a Christian.

I called the author those things.

Oerdin · September 9, 2002, 01:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger
The Muslim world is not as developed, in general, as the Western world. This includes socially, economically and technologically.

Wait a while. They'll catch up, as there is nothing inherently worse in one rather than the other...

If by catch up you mean become more like us then I think you are wrong. This culture is different and has different cultural values which will probably lead them to a different end then the western liberal democracies. I seriously doubt they will become democratic, pluralistic, or begin protecting ethnic and religious minorities anytime soon.

As for no culture being inherently worse or better then another culture; you couldn't be further from wrong. Some cultures really are better then other cultures. When you look at every meaningful way we can measure cultures from the protection of ethnic & religious minorities, to being democraticly leaning, to producing better economic results, to protecting human rights, to allowing free speech and desent, to creating an equitable and just society some cultures clearly out proform other cultures. Thus we can say some cultures really are inferior to other cultures.

to pretend these differences don't exist is to deny reality.

KrazyHorse · September 9, 2002, 01:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin

If by catch up you mean become more like us then I think you are wrong. This culture is different and has different cultural values which will probably lead them to a different end then the western liberal democracies. I seriously doubt they will become democratic, pluralistic, or begin protecting ethnic and religious minorities anytime soon

Why? Would you have predicted in 1300 that Britain would become fairly tolerant by 1800?

Quote:

As for no culture being inherently worse or better then another culture; you couldn't be further from wrong

Thank you for telling me that I'm right, but I didn't say that.

Quote:

Some cultures really are better then other cultures. When you look at every meaningful way we can measure cultures for the protection of ethnic & religious minorities, to being democraticly leaning, to producing better economic results, to protecting human rights, to allowing free speech and desent, to creating an equitable and just society some cultures clearly out proform other cultures. Thus we can say some cultures really are inferior to other cultures

to pretend these differences don't exist is to deny reality.

And I don't: the Western world (of today) is better than the Muslim world (of today).

Shi Huangdi · September 9, 2002, 01:58

"The Muslim world is not as developed, in general, as the Western world. This includes socially, economically and technologically.

Wait a while. They'll catch up, as there is nothing inherently worse in one rather than the other..."

Don't assume that just because one religion developed along certain lines that other ones will too.With Islam it is going to be harder, because it is structured differently-a stricter interpretation of the scripture is demandedin their religion(see previous post) and the Koran has specific commands on government and a specific command to spread the religion by the Sword.

KrazyHorse · September 9, 2002, 02:00

How so? Christians were strict fundamentalists until the 1600s, in general.

And it was the Protestants (without the rigid church system you claim is positive) that finally broke the mold, not the Catholics.

Oerdin · September 9, 2002, 02:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger
I didn't call you a fanatic, or a Christian.

I called the author those things.

Ok, glade we straightened that one out. No hard feelings?

KrazyHorse · September 9, 2002, 02:01

Why would I hold hard feelings?

Oerdin · September 9, 2002, 02:17

In 1600 Christian Europe was fairly militant but this was mainly because of the thirty years war and the Protestant Reformation. Large political and religious changes made in a short time tend to polarize people.

Britain in 1300 most certainly had the seeds of a modern demacracy already sowed; it wasn't a modern democracy yet but we had trial by jury (for middle and upper class atleast), we had limits on the power of monarchs (limits only nobles could work with in but still limits), and we had a nucleus of a parliment.

The Christian bible tells people what they should do to be a moral person but it doesn't spell out every detail of their daily life, nor their legal system, nor punishments of people who disobay the bible, nor persribe a political order, nor does it directly state the faithful must convert or kill the nonbelievers. Islam spells out each of these; thus we get the two faces of Islam. The peaceful tolerent Islam spoken about in some sections and the draconian hateful Islam which preaches death and destruction.

Many hateful things were commited by christians but the bible didn't directly tell them to do these things. Christians interpreted the bible and decided, either as political cover or out of true religious belief, that they should commit atrocities. The Koran really does say it is the duty of Muslims to kill the nonbeliever who refuses to convert. This statement is contradicted in other parts of the Koran where peaceful coexistance is called for but this dicotomy isn't found in Judism or Christianity.

Imran Siddiqui · September 9, 2002, 02:25

Quote:

Many hateful things were commited by christians but the bible didn't directly tell them to do these things. Christians interpreted the bible and decided, either as political cover or out of true religious belief, that they should commit atrocities. The Koran really does say it is the duty of Muslims to kill the nonbeliever who refuses to convert. This statement is contradicted in other parts of the Koran where peaceful coexistance is called for but this dicotomy isn't found in Judism or Christianity.

Read the Bible again. Especially the Old Testament.

KrazyHorse · September 9, 2002, 02:25

Quote:

Britain in 1300 most certainly had the seeds of a modern demacracy already sowed; it wasn't a modern democracy yet but we had trial by jury (for middle and upper class atleast), we had limits on the power of monarchs (limits only nobles could work with in but still limits), and we had a nucleus of a parliment

You've fallen under the impression that the Magna Carta was a statement of democratic rights for at least the upper class...when in fact it was a statement of feudal rights. If it was anything, it was a floor plan for a federal system....and the fact that Britain ended up a democratic, non-federal entity should tell you something.

Oerdin · September 9, 2002, 02:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Read the Bible again. Especially the Old Testament.

The old testiment does have a vengeful god who turns the cities of Sadam & Gamora to Salt, who orders Moses to kill his son, and what not. The old testiment portrail of god even has god ordering the deaths of specific people such as when god orders all captured soldiers of the invading army of Asyrians should be put to death; but, there is never a direct call that all non-believers should be killed if they refuse to convert.

There is never even a call for action against non-believers in the bible except that a Christian must show them love and help those who ask to find "the light of Christ". Now that is clearly religious drival but it is at least non-violent religious drival. There is no call to violence in one sentence and then a call to non-violence in another sentence.

That dicotomy is unique to Islam.

Oerdin · September 9, 2002, 02:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger
You've fallen under the impression that the Magna Carta was a statement of democratic rights for at least the upper class...when in fact it was a statement of feudal rights. If it was anything, it was a floor plan for a federal system....and the fact that Britain ended up a democratic, non-federal entity should tell you something.

The Magna Carta wasn't anything like the America Constiution but it never the less stated that a section of society (the rich nobility) had rights the king could not take away and that the king must consult the nobilities representatives conserning certain things. Yes, it protected the rights of the rich but never the less this was the enshrined law of the land and so we could see that already Britain was more pluralistic & more democratic (even if in a small way) then other societies.

Imran Siddiqui · September 9, 2002, 02:47

Quote:

there is never a direct call that all non-believers should be killed if they refuse to convert.

Why does it have to be direct? It seems that if you take all the actions of the Old Testament God, you have a God that says all un-believers should be killed. You are blaming the Koran for simply putting that into writing

.

ckweb · September 9, 2002, 03:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

there is never a direct call that all non-believers should be killed if they refuse to convert.

Why does it have to be direct? It seems that if you take all the actions of the Old Testament God, you have a God that says all un-believers should be killed. You are blaming the Koran for simply putting that into writing

.

Not a smoking chance in hell . . . While it is true that the "God of the Old Testament" is a more violent and vengeful God (at least superficially speaking), there is simply no question in the OT that the pregorative to kill lies with God and God alone. As the creator of life, he may also destroy life. Humans are expressly forbidden from murder . . . it is in the Ten Commandments. Now, killing on the part of humans seems, at least in the OT, to be justified if it is in accordance with the judgment of God. How this plays out is difficult to assess and might leave a bit of squeaking room for your assessment (but not much) . . . But, it would seem that killing is justified as a retribution for certain types of crime and as a part of war only. . .

The God of the OT is not an indiscrimnate God in the application of force. Not all un-believers are condemned. Rather, the OT sets in force quite a remarkable system of laws designed to protect foreigners, immigrants, etc.

ckweb · September 9, 2002, 03:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Read the Bible again. Especially the Old Testament.

The old testiment does have a vengeful god who turns the cities of Sadam & Gamora to Salt, who orders Moses to kill his son, and what not.

Read your bible again . . . it's Abraham not Moses . . .

KrazyHorse · September 9, 2002, 03:40

Quote:

If you hear it said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in 13 that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, [1] both its people and its livestock. 16 Gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. It is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt. 17 None of those condemned things [2] shall be found in your hands, so that the Lord will turn from his fierce anger; he will show you mercy, have compassion on you, and increase your numbers, as he promised on oath to your forefathers, 18 because you obey the Lord your God, keeping all his commands that I am giving you today and doing what is right in his eyes

Deuteronomy chapter 13, verses 12-18

ckweb · September 9, 2002, 03:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger

Quote:

If you hear it said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in 13 that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, [1] both its people and its livestock. 16 Gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. It is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt. 17 None of those condemned things [2] shall be found in your hands, so that the Lord will turn from his fierce anger; he will show you mercy, have compassion on you, and increase your numbers, as he promised on oath to your forefathers, 18 because you obey the Lord your God, keeping all his commands that I am giving you today and doing what is right in his eyes

Deuteronomy chapter 13, verses 12-18

Note: None of the subjects of God's wrath in these verses are un-believers. They are believers that are apostazing and influencing others to do the same. Big difference.

KrazyHorse · September 9, 2002, 03:56

Nope. Note how it's in reference to the "towns God gave you to live in" (paraphrase).

This means that Jews are justified in wholesale slaughter of all inhabitants of historical Judaea&Samaria (West Bank), etc.

ckweb · September 9, 2002, 03:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger
Nope. Note how it's in reference to the "towns God gave you to live in" (paraphrase).

Read it again. Yes it is. Notice the tense patterns and the use of pronouns. The people being spoken to, namely believers, are already occupying the towns.

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger
This means that Jews are justified in wholesale slaughter of all inhabitants of historical Judaea&Samaria (West Bank), etc.

Not in the least . . . The instructions are occasion specific and again the passage refers to the believers.

KrazyHorse · September 9, 2002, 04:03

No, it refers to all inhabitants of the "towns God is giving you to live in".

Which in Deuteronomy refers to a specific geographic area (the promised land).

Not "the towns in which Jews are a majority", not "the inhabitants who are corrupted Jews".

ckweb · September 9, 2002, 04:18

Okay. This is going to take a little explaining . . .

Deuteronomy, in large part, consists of Moses' final speeches to the Israelites before his death and prior to the beginning of the conquest. As this book and the subsequent book, Joshua, argue, the conquest is a war led by the Lord, meaning that certain rules apply. God is judging the inhabitants of the land and everything in the land is placed under a sacrificial ban: everyone and everything must be destroyed before the Israelites take up occupancy. In the passage you are quoting, Moses is relating how the Israelites must conduct themselves after the conquest. It presumes that the conquest was followed according to the instructions given and therefore, there would be no un-believers in the land unless they immigrated after the conquest: they've already been killed. The instructions to destroy a city in apotasy are instructions to destroy an Israelite population in an Israelite city.

BTW, even if you continue to read your way, what I said in earlier posts is still accurate, the prerogative to kill remains God's alone . . . it is given into human hands only to judge a crime (which is where Deut 13:12ff. falls in) or as part of war (which is where the conquest fits in). Now, here's the squeaking room I was talking about . . . how do we know God really stands behind these commands?

ckweb · September 9, 2002, 04:25

The difference between the Islamic conception of violence and war and the OT version of it is that some passages of the Qu'ran present violence and killing as an enduring, universal command whereas the OT almost always limits it to specific times, events, and/or circumstances. The enduring and universal command in the OT; that is, the command that has no qualifications or time restrictions, is the one in the Ten Commandments: Thou shalt not kill. It is also repeated in positive form: Love the Lord your God and Love your neighbor as yourself.

KrazyHorse · September 9, 2002, 04:26

ck, the prerogative to kill lies in God's hands alone in the Quran too, if we're going to interpret it as broadly as that.

And I also seem to remember the Quran making direct statements against murdering other "peoples of the book" (Christians+Jews) because of their persistence of belief...and against conversion by the sword.

notyoueither · September 9, 2002, 04:32

How far do you want to split the fvcking hair Frogger?

I don't recall in my lifetime any Christian Crusades to overcome the unbelievers. Why is so hard for so many to accept that the Christian (and Athiest) West is very different from the sh!t that is going on among militant Muslims?

'Islam... It's all Peace'... what a joke. That is the pablum the CBC and others were trying to pass off as fact in the days following 9/11. Why do you have a problem with a book that pr!cks that bubble of fantasy?

ckweb · September 9, 2002, 04:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger
ck, the prerogative to kill lies in God's hands alone in the Quran too, if we're going to interpret it as broadly as that.

To a certain extent you might be right. I must admit I have not read the Qu'ran in great depth. However, as I far as I can see it, violence and killing in the Qu'ran is glorified in a way in which it is not in the OT. For instance, the quotes from the Qu'ran offered in the post that began this thread do not really have an equivalent in the OT. The idea that killing can win you a place in paradise or win God's favour is not really stated in the OT. Okay. Certainly as the Dt passage suggests, God directs killing and fulfilling the command earns some measure of approval from God but it is still quite different than Qu'ranic idea of an individualized act of killing an infidel as praiseworthy. Killing in the OT is an act carried out as a measure of divine justice in response to a specified transgression or in the course of war. Outside of such specified situations, it is expressly forbidden. It is almost always a corporate resonsibility rather than an individualized one. In the Qu'ran, it seems to me that killing an infidel requires little or even no justification and the individual, rather than a corporate body of people, is charged with carrying out the act. Ach, do you get what I'm getting at? I feel like I'm not really explaining myself well . . .

Also and perhaps more to the important, I think more of the OT and the NT rejects and condemns killing than defends killing. On the other hand, I'm not sure the Qu'ran present such a favourable picture of the virtues of non-violence, peace, and love as many parts of the OT and NT do.

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger
And I also seem to remember the Quran making direct statements against murdering other "peoples of the book" (Christians+Jews) because of their persistence of belief...and against conversion by the sword.

I believe you are accurate, although it doesn't make me feel any better that Christians and Jews might be technically exempt from physical jihad.

KrazyHorse · September 9, 2002, 07:28

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
How far do you want to split the fvcking hair Frogger?

I don't recall in my lifetime any Christian Crusades to overcome the unbelievers. Why is so hard for so many to accept that the Christian (and Athiest) West is very different from the sh!t that is going on among militant Muslims?

'Islam... It's all Peace'... what a joke. That is the pablum the CBC and others were trying to pass off as fact in the days following 9/11. Why do you have a problem with a book that pr!cks that bubble of fantasy?

Xianity as practiced today...in the West...is a better religion than Islam as practiced today...in the ME or Pakistan, Phillipines, etc.

Happy sweethearts?

KrazyHorse · September 9, 2002, 07:29

I have no special love for Islam, and am under no delusions as to the extent that the Muslim world as a whole respects human rights...

Ned · September 9, 2002, 11:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Faeelin

I don't know. Crusades, which promised that anyone who died was instantly going to heaven? Reconquista?

That was a pope to promised those who died in the crusades a place in heaven. That was more than 1000 years after Christ. If it marked a change from "turn the other cheek," then I ask when did Islam have the same change, but in the opposite direction. When did peaceful co-existence with the Infidel become the norm?

I note that Islamic armies (Turkish) continued to assault Europe until just a few hundred years ago, the Moguls in India did not give up power until the last century, IIRC.

Where-ever you see a non Islamic people bordering or being the dominant culture in a nation, you tend to see either war or terrorism. What does this mean other than than Islam has never, ever been a peaceful religion.